the things, what happens if they didn't find anything this week? Will Spain then line him up for the World Championships? If he survived all the targeted testing this week, there's no reason why he shouldn't go for the win in Innsbruck

the things, what happens if they didn't find anything this week? Will Spain then line him up for the World Championships? If he survived all the targeted testing this week, there's no reason why he shouldn't go for the win in Innsbruck

Free Alarcón!

Assuming he holds a Spanish licence, then he must be on the AEPSAD passport programme, so he has to fly under the longitudinal radar and beat the OOC and IC tests. Impressive stuff, although we know now that AEPSAD is starting to act on suspicious profiles.

Meanwhile Alarcón signs one-year deals and squeezes what he can from the modest scene. At 32, he could surely deliver a couple of seasons' worth of good results elsewhere but either the 'phone isn't ringing or he's turning them all down. So if he didn't make a move after last year's Volta, my guess is he's not going to do it now.

Meanwhile Alarcón signs one-year deals and squeezes what he can from the modest scene. At 32, he could surely deliver a couple of seasons' worth of good results elsewhere but either the 'phone isn't ringing or he's turning them all down. So if he didn't make a move after last year's Volta, my guess is he's not going to do it now.

yeah, it's pretty telling that no one is taking the risk, although he's probably a top 3 climber in the world. There are not many others around who can reach those numbers at least

Another Spaniard operating in Portugal. Errazkin is a massive talent and the media angle is that he got dropped from the Spanish Avenir squad because of this, a suggestion denied by the national team manager.

What is notable about this, I think, is that it has one small similarity to the Froome case. Not because it's an asthma drug but rather because, like Froome, this was an AAF that somehow got leaked.

Anyway, assuming Errazkin cannot raise a phalanx of lawyers, he can probably expect at best a Yates-style short suspension.

....What is notable about this, I think, is that it has one small similarity to the Froome case. Not because it's an asthma drug but rather because, like Froome, this was an AAF that somehow got leaked.

Anyway, assuming Errazkin cannot raise a phalanx of lawyers, he can probably expect at best a Yates-style short suspension.

One important difference to the Froome case, isn't Terbutaline on the forbidden substances list whereas Salbutamol is on the list of specified substances (I don't know the legal terms as well as you do...). In other words, even if the AAF shouldn't be leaked, there's hardly any discussion on legal levels, dehydration and so on, it is a simpler call on presence/not presence.[1]

Hmmm...it reminds me a lot of Vegard Robinson Bugge's case ... also terbutaline and according to an old news report in procycling.no (link, it is in Norwegian), Bugge got approximately 24 hours from positive A-sample notification until the case was made public to the media. Now this happened before Norway's two high-profile doping cases in cross-country skiing, and at the time cycling in Norway had every reason to show strict anti-doping stance, not just in saying but in actions too. However it is obvious that the time from AAF notification to the case was made public was probably less than for Froome, even if it technically wasn't leaked.

These two cases suggest that Conti squad cyclists get a rough treatment (in some cases well deserved) whereas the big stars (cycling and cross country skiing) are handled with care. I guess a larger selection is called for to get valid statistics, but neverthelss...

One important difference to the Froome case, isn't Terbutaline on the forbidden substances list whereas Salbutamol is on the list of specified substances (I don't know the legal terms as well as you do...). In other words, even if the AAF shouldn't be leaked, there's hardly any discussion on legal levels, dehydration and so on, it is a simpler call on presence/not presence.[1]

Hmmm...it reminds me a lot of Vegard Robinson Bugge's case ... also terbutaline and according to an old news report in procycling.no (link, it is in Norwegian), Bugge got approximately 24 hours from positive A-sample notification until the case was made public to the media. Now this happened before Norway's two high-profile doping cases in cross-country skiing, and at the time cycling in Norway had every reason to show strict anti-doping stance, not just in saying but in actions too. However it is obvious that the time from AAF notification to the case was made public was probably less than for Froome, even if it technically wasn't leaked.

These two cases suggest that Conti squad cyclists get a rough treatment (in some cases well deserved) whereas the big stars (cycling and cross country skiing) are handled with care. I guess a larger selection is called for to get valid statistics, but neverthelss...

(this makes it sound like chemical analysis is simple, but I fully respect the need for well trained professionals in that discipline....)

Absolutely right. There is no exception for terbutaline so the outcome is a traditional "positive test".

In Bugge's case, my understanding was that it was he and his team who chose the moment to go public, hence the short timespan. It was evidently the decision of someone who has nothing to hide by going public but also probably less to lose in doing so.

some beautiful fixing there in Ukraine, with lone escapee Rutkiewicz waiting for Shumov inside the final Kilometer

Fake news! Minsk is in Belarus, not Ukraine! SAD!

Seriously though, this is bloody blatant. An investigation needs to be launched.

Looking at the main characters in this charade, though, it doesn't surprise me one bit:Rutkiewicz quietly moved from French pro teams back to Poland after in 2004 when was allegedly supercharged (beats me how he was never suspended), and have fired one of their riders (Krasilnikau) for committing the unforgiveable crime of winning the champs himself in 2015 and not letting team founder Kuchynski run away with the honours.

Rutkiewicz quietly moved from French pro teams back to Poland after in 2004 when was allegedly supercharged (beats me how he was never suspended) ...

Rutkiewicz was arrested in 2004 and after a search at the airport he was found to be carrying a significant quantity of banned substances. Having been fired by Cofidis, which came under investigation after his arrest, Rutkiewicz legged it back to Poland and was convicted in absentia. He also tested positive in 2013 but somehow managed to beat the system and was never sanctioned.

Rutkiewicz says it was his way of saying thanks for inviting the Polish team to Belarus

Quote

(gt)

Originally, we were planning to race this weekend at the Pucharze MON. However, due to the cancellation of the race, we were left without a race a week before the Polish Mountain Road Championships. So we were looking for other solutions, but nowhere was the place. Branislau Samoilau helped us, thanks to which we got the opportunity to take part in two classics in Belarus. The team from Minsk helped us settle everything, so we wanted to repay

It came out that during the Saturday race Maciej Paterski won against the cyclist from Minsk, and on Sunday it was the opposite. In the last kilometers, when I was driving at the head, I saw Nikolai Shumov chasing me on solo. I waited for him and we went to the finish in two. Nobody sold the race to anyone, we just helped each other.

In Bugge's case, my understanding was that it was he and his team who chose the moment to go public, hence the short timespan. It was evidently the decision of someone who has nothing to hide by going public but also probably less to lose in doing so.

~24 hours of choosing isn't a lot. There's either more to the story than we know, or he was forced to go public almost immediately. Or both.

~24 hours of choosing isn't a lot. There's either more to the story than we know, or he was forced to go public almost immediately. Or both.

Things were a bit different in 2015 but the usual course of business was that UCI would inform a rider and his team in writing and thereby give them a reasonable period of time to handle it themselves. By reasonable, I am not talking about 24 hours here.

The rider would discuss the matter with his team and the result would usually depend on individual circumstances. Obviously with big dope and/or "acting alone" positives (e.g. Houanard, Georges), the team would be more likely to distance itself than a whereabouts or TUE mess through which it could still support the rider or for which it might even have been partly responsible (e.g. Offredo, Yates). There would be an agreement on how to go forward. This discussion and agreement would happen over the 'phone or in person but how soon and how easily it would happen depended on management style and the scale of operations.

The rider and the team might both make a statement or the team alone and this would provide the opportunity for damage limitation. If nothing at all was published, UCI would put out a press release and offer no further comment.

Nowadays, as we know, UCI doesn't bother with press releases for relatively minor cases, partly because it costs resources but also because it tended to reflect on UCI itself and somehow a party to the responsibility. The only occasions on which you get them now is when UCI can make itself and/or its subsidiaries look proactive and attentive.

I do not see anything doubtful about Bugge's case. I don't know for sure, of course, but I don't see that Bugge and his team were forced into making the positive public, they just dealt with it quickly as a small, uncomplicated CT team might and went public with the knowledge that it was their opportunity to control the narrative favourably. And it was terbutaline, after all, not CERA or HGH. The media aren't interested in that unless some big shot gets busted for it.

Another Spaniard operating in Portugal. Errazkin is a massive talent and the media angle is that he got dropped from the Spanish Avenir squad because of this, a suggestion denied by the national team manager.

What is notable about this, I think, is that it has one small similarity to the Froome case. Not because it's an asthma drug but rather because, like Froome, this was an AAF that somehow got leaked.

Anyway, assuming Errazkin cannot raise a phalanx of lawyers, he can probably expect at best a Yates-style short suspension.

if this article is to be believed, that positive test does not exist, nor will there be any kind of investigation

It's an odd one because it has not been confirmed by UCI but Record, the main source, did not use the conditional tense in the story, which is still up on its website, as are all the others which repeated it.

As we mentioned with Bugge above, Terbutaline is banned without a TUE, which is what makes this story confusing because most media sources are talking about AAFs rather than positives. If the kid does not, as he claims, even know what a TUE is, then this should be an open-and-shut case because he obviously doesn't have one. Now he claims there has never been any sort of AAF or investigation, which suggests the original media reports are wrong.

I don't know this Sprint Final website and I won't accept it as a reputable source. If Record, As and others pull the story within the next day or two, then I'll go with that.

Am NOT understand Whot is happening!From my last test from UCI ,am Soo from the last two test same wrong !In testing urine (hi put two test from this one analysis,and second NOT).In the last one AFTER TEST LONG TIME AM NOT SO IN MY PROFILO TESTING (ABOUT TWO WEEKS).LATE PUBLICATION WHOT IS TEST NOT ANALYSET (SAME THINK HAPPENED)??AND NOW THIS NOTICE!am looking to process,and my liberating

not sure what exactly he wants to say, but he sounds pretty upset and confused about it

Siutsou. 38 now. No contract for next year. Would he actually risk taking EPO? I guess Bahrain-Merida mgmt think so. Maybe he's been a micro-doser - I don't know enough about any of this to think anything one way or the other.

Old riders (with some years experience in the the oldskool peloton) out of contract are seen as a high risk group. Commentary on Norwegian TV2 said he actually had raised his eyebrows a little this summer when Sitsou suddenly started winning races again, and they spent some time this stage explaining what they saw as different in the peloton now compared to "back then": the price the riders pay for attacking seems higher, they run out of gas much more often and as a result we see less attacks from further out and more last kms action on grand tour stages.

not sure what exactly he wants to say, but he sounds pretty upset and confused about it

I agree, and while it is not unusual to hear some sort of denial at this stage it springs to mind that there have been complaints by athletes in the press here about errors in the ADAMS system lately, to which WADA replied: "we are building a new app" - which in my ears sounds like: "yes we know about that and we really need a better system or at least a better interface to the system".

I hope this isn't a byproduct of database mess.... but I think it has happened before and may happen again.

With which you are implying that this is evidence that Siutsou may be innocent?

no. unrelated to Siutsou 31st July problems, I just noticed he got tested, and all was fine, on Tenerifemy interest was about the location. there were discussions about riders going to Tenerife because of -no testing-Siutsou list shows that Wada tests riders on Tenerife

What he's saying, I think, is that his test result on 31 July reads "negative" in the system while the official announcement of his test result for that day says otherwise. Also, this was a targeted test, if I understood the UCI's communiqué correctly, but the system does not show Siutsou any evidence that he's been showing abnormalities. But why would any red flags be made visible to an athlete anyway? That would defeat the purpose of the ABAP.

Finally, and this seems to have been overlooked, he claims that the NAS has paid him a visit. I very much doubt national law enforcement agencies would spend time searching the homes of individuals just because they tested positive.